MARTIN DUNN
Aaaagh!
The stack of entries to the Chief of the General Staff's essay competition was daunting: a total of 17 essays, all approaching the 10 000 word mark, towering over the other piles of paper on my desk. But now that I am thankfully near the end of the marking, I need a diversion.
We like to think of ourselves as an organisation of professionals - and a deeper understanding of our profession is important to us. The Army needs such people to help it adapt to changes in the world around it, and (more practically) argue its case in the Defence Organisation. It would be good if this could come out of a packet of breakfast cereal, or even a course - perhaps a few months at staff college. The reality is that maintaining professional knowledge is a lifelong challenge.
Some useful advice with any intellectual pursuit is to do three things: first, to read about it; second, to talk about it; and finally, to write about it. Each step demands a higher level of understanding. It would be nice to say that all our officers could produce high quality writing about their profession but, from the small sample with the confidence and inclination to submit their work to be judged, this is not so.
The Words
Too often expression is weak. I, for one, do not belong to the school that believes that if writing hurts the head it must have intellectual merit. Yet why is it that people feel the need to explain things obscurely, or alternatively reduce their writing to cliches?
Let me also correct an apparent myth: It is not true that you need to use a quota of in-words - "synergy", "holistic" and "overarching" - to be rated highly. On the other hand, if you use them inappropriately you will lose marks.
As a rule of thumb, you should be able to cut 10-20 percent of the words from your draft with no loss of meaning and produce a clearer, crisper, more readable work.
The Argument
Now for comprehensible essays, the reader looks for an argument, not just a recitation of facts. The author needs a message and the message needs to be supported by the essay.
I remember being told that a good essay should have an introduction, a body and a conclusion. The introduction should say what you are going to say, the body should say it, and the conclusion should say what you have just said. Such a prescriptive approach need not apply to all writing - for example I ignore it here. Yet, those that diverge from this model need to know why. You need a logical structure that the reader can follow.
There is nothing worse than getting to the end of the essay and finding that it has left you flat. Where is the meat? What is it that you should have remembered from all that time slogging through the text?
Well perhaps there is something worse - large amounts of trivia and digression that do not relate to the message. The reader does not need to see your implementation plan, unless it is an important part of your argument.
The Evidence
Finally, the best arguments cannot be supported by thin air alone. Despite this, it is surprising that people feel that their assertions alone are all that is needed. Things are not so just because someone says that they are.
There is an almost endless range of sources. Books, journals and the news media are common sources; but interviews, surveys and emerging media (such as the Internet) are also there to be used. You should attempt to cover the ground thoroughly, but recognise that not all sources can be used and not all are of equal value. Rather, the issues are whether all the key facts and opinions have been identified and whether the most authoritative sources have been tapped. It is almost tragic that the key sources on our Defence policy are amongst those most poorly used. Lastly, you should not ignore a perspective just because it does not fit with your case. Instead, it should be identified and, if possible, disposed of.
Most importantly, be critical. You should not have to accept an opinion simply on the weight of the originator's prestige. Test it. Does it mean anything or is it just semantics? Are there alternatives? Does it accord with your own observations and reading?
Now start writing
Numerous journals accept submissions. The Australian Defence Force Journal and Combat Arms Journal are two well-known examples; but even Research and Analysis accepts shorter written works. You can only improve yourself by starting. Start now.
Originally published in Research & Analysis: Newsletter of the Directorate of Army Research and Analysis, Issue 11, Canberra, December 1996.
(c) Copyright Commonwealth of Australia 1996 - reprinted with permission.